Australian standard geographical classification asgc remoteness postcode look-up tool

When you apply to your Tertiary Admission Centre, or directly to UNE for a UNE course, the adjustment will be automatically assigned according to your residential postcode. There is no separate application required. To assist you in determining if you are eligible, please use the Australian Government postcode look-up tool.

Search archive. Print page. Show technical. My items. Accessibility Copyright Disclaimer Privacy Sitemap. You may be familiar with census collection districts, the smallest area you can get census data from. All of those areas are going to be changed according to some new classifications.

It will not affect the remoteness classification in that we were still proposing releasing it with the same five categories. The unit that we built it up from, instead of being the CD, which was the old census unit, will be the new SA1, which is a replacement unit for census output. We do not expect that those changes will cause a lot of change to the remoteness classification itself, but the remoteness classification is due for update towards the end of this year, the end of , because we do take the new census data and we produce a new list of all the towns of Australia and all their sizes, and ARIA is recalculated based on that information.

We then take those ARIA values again and overlay them—in this case it will be with SA1s—to produce the five categories and the new map of remoteness for Australia, which will come out towards the end of However, people who live in other areas of Australia may find fewer health services are available locally. Delivered by the Department of Health and Ageing, the Strategy includes incentives to GPs to live and work outside major cities. The more remote the location in which the doctor works, the greater the incentive.

Figure 5. The length of this period of time can be reduced if the recipient works in DWS that are also outside metropolitan areas. The program is administered by the Rural Workforce Agencies in each state and territory.

However, if overseas doctors work in districts of workforce shortage which are also located in RA-2 to RA-5 locations, they can reduce this ten year period. Like the return of service obligation of Australian doctors, the ten year period is reduced most quickly for overseas doctors who work in RA-5 locations, and reduced progressively less quickly for those working in RA-4, RA-3 and RA-2 locations.

For example, some organizations paid an additional allowance to staff stationed in 'rural' areas based on the definition found in the ASGC Section of State classification. The validity of using the ASGC in this way depends entirely on the relevance of the geographical concept to the desired policy outcomes. It is vitally important that anyone developing policies, funding formulae or intervention strategies understands the alignment, or lack of alignment, between a particular geographical classification and their business objective.

No geographical classification should be used as a simplistic answer to complex questions. In most cases a variety of data overlays will be required to target a particular population. The application of the Remoteness Area Classification has not ensured appropriate distribution of funds and should be reviewed. The classification system in the health sector—ASGC-RA—used for the distribution of incentives, must be reviewed, and a key criterion of town size added to the formula.

The key challenge for the Australian health workforce reform is correcting the mal-distribution of rural doctors and other health professionals. The mal-distribution occurs at two levels: 1 mal-distribution of doctors and health professionals between rural and metropolitan areas; and 2 mal-distribution of doctors and health professionals between Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas.

As such, the ASGC-RA can fail to represent the extent of health disadvantage experienced in some rural and remote areas In RDAA's view, the GISCA report [; discussed following] does not address the major problems that smaller towns face competing with attractions and services available in large regional centres. Unless major changes are made to increase the classification differential between these towns and cities, the small towns will continue to lose out to the major regional cities in attracting much-needed doctors.

Under the existing ASGC scheme for targeting workforce incentives there are clearly problems. The existing schema is not equitable and, I would argue, is not effective. This is particularly because of the inherent heterogeneity in the ASGC categories 2 and Currently we have a situation where doctors who are practising in large, well-supported communities, in environmentally attractive areas, in resource rich areas—places such as Coffs Harbour, for instance—are eligible for the same types of incentives as those who work in small inland, remote communities.

As you will be aware, this is clearly inequitable. It is also an ineffective use of resources. NRHA were supportive of its use, but stated both in their submission, and in their appearance before the committee that it needed to be supplemented in order to provide equitable outcomes:. The Alliance's view is that, for a number of reasons, the ASGC-RA is the most appropriate basis of a rurality classification system to be used for various purposes, including for the allocation of public resources.

However it should be seen as a necessary but not sufficient part of such a classification system. For any particular purpose, ASGC-RA should be augmented by one or more additional filters or lenses suitable for that purpose. For instance, it will make sense for many purposes to add to the basic ASGC-RA ranking or score a measure of population size. Also, for access to GPs, for example, it would make sense to include the existing ratios of GPs to population as happens for the definitions of Districts of Workforce Shortage and Areas of Need.

The policy objectives of the program are to facilitate choice in higher education and to increase higher education participation by students from low socio-economic status backgrounds, particularly Indigenous students and students from regional and remote areas. Under the program, higher education providers assess applicants and approve scholarship recipients in accordance with broad guidelines as determined by the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DEEWR.

The Commonwealth Scholarships Program has substantially expanded as a result of the Scholarships for a Competitive Future measure announced in the Budget. This measure doubles the number of available scholarships to 88, by This most recent expansion of Commonwealth Scholarships follows an increase in the number of new Commonwealth Scholarships in from 8, to 12, The Commonwealth Scholarships program is administered on behalf of the Australian Government by eligible higher education providers.

Providers are responsible for conducting their own application and selection procedures on the basis of guidelines issued by the Commonwealth.